Political (science) reporting

By Ryan PowersVia the Monkey Cage, the Columbia Journalism Review on the difference between political journalists and political scientists:
That perspective differs from the standard journalistic point of view in emphasizing structural, rather than personality-based, explanations for political outcomes. The rise of partisan polarization in Congress is often explained, in the press, as a consequence of a decline in civility. But there are reasons for it–such as the increasing ideological coherence of the two parties, and procedural changes that create new incentives to band together—that have nothing to do with manners. Or consider the president. In press accounts, he comes across as alternately a tragic or a heroic figure, his stock fluctuating almost daily depending on his ability to “connect” with voters. But political-science research, while not questioning that a president’s effectiveness matters, suggests that the occupant of the Oval Office is, in many ways, a prisoner of circumstance. His approval ratings—and re-election prospects—rise and fall with the economy. His agenda lives or dies on Capitol Hill. And his ability to move Congress, or the public, with a good speech or a savvy messaging strategy is, while not nonexistent, sharply constrained.
I wonder if part of the failure thus far to incorporate major political science findings and theories into political reporting is a desire on the part of journalists, politicians, and activists to matter in significant ways, rather than at the margins.

By Jonathan Bernstein
It's fun to be blogging with Dylan Matthews; I've been a fan for a while now. I think he's right to point out that one of the outcomes of the past year or so is likely to be a resurgence of liberal confidence in the presidency, and that one good way to think about Elena Kagan is in terms of how her executive branch experience during the current era of partisan polarization may shape her views in the future.

Claims that Barack Obama is actually up to the job of being president--both when I make them and when they are made to me--have, since early 2009, run up against the problem that the low-hanging economic policy fruit is and always has been keeping the Federal Reserve Governor pipeline filled. That means (a) nominating candidates for vacant governorships and (b) doing the congressional outreach to solidify at least Democratic senators behind the candidates you intend to nominate.

Tom Friedman becomes the latest in a very long string of pundits to blame congressional polarization on partisan gerrymandering of House districts. As Joshua Tucker points out no matter how many times people say this, there’s still no evidence that it’s true.

Josh Marshall puzzles over what’s changed in American politics to make the 60 vote threshold so difficult to overcome, and argues that “we’re also deluding ourselves if we do not figure in a large role for larger structural changes in our politics.